Cisco v HP switch

[Curio]

We're getting a couple of quotes for network upgrades. One company has quoted a Cisco SG300/52 and the other company a HP ProCurve 2910al-48G. The HP is 3x more than the Cisco. What are the differences between these two switches? I'm not really a server/network person, so it's all a bit confusing to me.

We're a small company (15 users) and use Terminal Services. Apparently our old switch is bottlenecking our network a bit.

Thanks!

 

[Curio]

Thanks guys. Our current switch is a Cisco 2960, which isn't gigabit. Although our applications aren't that demanding (couple of Sage apps do 95% of our work) we are being told our current switch can't handle the iSCSI load?

Very much appreciate the advice.

 

[Curio]

OK, we do have a small Dell gigabit switch as well.

Here is what the assessment from one of the companies says...

"XXXXXXX currently has a Dell 2808 gig switch which is used for server connections. This switch is not setup for management, however it does have the capability. There is a single interconnect to the Cisco 2960 10/100 switch, this is where workstations, printers and router/firewall are connected and is also not setup for management. With the use of the NAS devices and virtualization it is recommended to replace both of these switches with a switch that can handle the high throughput of iSCSI"

The second company's assessment said much the same, only they recommended the Cisco gig switch instead of the HP.

We do experience the occasional bout of slow-down in RDS, although I realize that might not be purely down to the switch.

EDIT: Yes, post above this is correct.